4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Willstätt, Germany. He was a minority shareholder of IVAX CR, a.s., a joint stock company incorporated under Czech law.
5.  On 25 June 2002 general meeting of that company adopted, by votes of the main shareholder, a resolution on the winding up of the company and division of its assets between two new companies: IVAX Pharmaceuticals, s.r.o and První Opavská, a.s. The former company included all the business of IVAX CR, a.s. and was owned exclusively by the main shareholder of the wound-up company. The latter company included only financial assets and was owned by minority shareholders of the wound-up company, including the applicant.
6.  On 5 September 2002 the Ostrava Regional Court (krajský soud) approved the registration of the winding up of the company and its deletion from the Companies Register with effect from 31 December 2002. The applicant did not have standing to participate in the proceedings. He nevertheless lodged an appeal.
7.  On 26 November 2002 the Olomouc High Court (vrchní soud) dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It ruled that since the applicant did not have standing to take part in the impugned proceedings, he was not entitled to appeal their outcome.
8.  On 1 March 2006 the Supreme Court (Nejvyšší soud) dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law.
9.  On 31 August 2006 the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud) dismissed the applicant’s constitutional appeal holding that participation of shareholders in Companies Register proceedings would cause considerable delays, which would compromise the requirement to record events and facts in the Register as soon as possible in order to protect rights of third persons relying on the correctness of information in it. It added that the right of access to court of the shareholders was sufficiently safeguarded in other proceedings. It also noted that if a court in charge of the Companies Register were to record a fact which was based on a resolution of a general meeting, and if the resolution was subsequently found unlawful in proceedings under Article 131 of the Commercial Code, that court would make necessary amendments to the Register even proprio motu.
10.  On 25 June 2002 the applicant lodged with the Regional Court an action to have the resolution on the winding up of the company set aside, asserting that it had been adopted contrary to the applicable law.
11.  On 24 November 2006 the Regional Court terminated the proceedings noting that company IVAX CR, a.s. had been deleted from the Companies Register on 31 December 2002. It referred to Article 220v in conjunction with 220h § 4 of the Commercial Code that prevented it from continuing the proceedings after the company had been deleted from the Companies Register.
12.  On 24 April 2007 the High Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal agreeing with the conclusions of the Regional Court.
13.  On 24 June 2009 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law agreeing with the lower courts.
14.  On 3 March 2011 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional appeal. It interpreted the relevant provisions of the domestic law in a way that, in its view, was compatible with the Convention, taking into account especially the Court’s judgment in Kohlhofer and Minarik v. the Czech Republic, nos. 32921/03, 28464/04 and 5344/05, 15 October 2009. It held that the applicant could have instituted proceedings under Article 131 § 4 of the Commercial Code claiming just satisfaction caused by an unlawful decision of a general meeting. In those proceedings the courts, as a necessary preliminary question, would have to decide on the legality of the decision, which was the issue that the applicant had been seeking access to court for. Consequently, the applicant’s right of access to court was sufficiently safeguarded in other proceedings. The relevant part of the judgment reads:
“Although the European Court of Human Rights found the existence of a legitimate aim of the decisive legal regulations embodied in Article 131 § 3(c) and Article 220 § 4 of the Commercial Code, it did not agree that it is a ‘proportionate’ measure, not even with regard to the existence of related and anticipated proceedings on the ‘review of the compensation’, damages and just satisfaction. ...
However, at present – with regard to the presented legal interpretation of the interconnection between the proceedings concerned, envisaged in Articles 220v, or 220h of the Commercial Code (on additional compensation Article 220k, damages or just satisfaction) and the proceedings on the invalidity of the general meeting’s resolution – [the proportionality of the measure] can already be regarded as proved if it was newly stipulated, in addition to the legal elements ‘at play’ before the European Court of Human Rights, that [the proceedings] are characterised (in Article 131 § 4 of the Commercial Code) by the basis, which is provided for in the grounds for the invalidity of the general meeting’s resolution (even ‘if the court does not declare the general meeting’s resolution null and void for reasons mentioned in § 3’). This corresponds to the above conclusion that the issue of validity, or invalidity, of a general meeting’s resolution is an issue that the court examines as a preliminary question in related proceedings on those ‘new’ claims; in such proceedings, in which the appellant is (could be) a fully-fledged participant, he can appropriately defend his rights, including adequate opposition to the general meeting’s resolution. It has also been said that the ‘declaration’ sought by the appellant in the reasoning of the order discontinuing the proceedings on the invalidity of the general meeting’s resolution lacks the decisive nature (if it ever had one), and it was also noted that the granting of ‘certain claims for damages and just satisfaction’ is already thereby capable of expressing that the previously challenged general meeting’s resolution contained some of the deficiencies claimed by the appellant.”
15.  The applicant instituted proceedings claiming compensation under Article 220k of the Commercial Code for an inadequate exchange ratio of shares of the wound-up company for shares of the new company.
16.  On 30 November 2007 the Regional Court decided that the amount of compensation the applicant had received was inadequate and ordered the defendant to pay to the applicant a sum amounting to 289,735.60 Czech korunas (CZK, 11,802 euros (EUR)) together with interest rate of 7.5 per cent starting from 31 December 2001.
17.  On 18 September 2009 the High Court upheld the judgment. It nevertheless partly modified the judgment’s operative part by including a declaration that the applicant, together with another petitioner, was entitled to additional compensation as provided for by Articles 200k and 220v of the Commercial Code.
18.  On 14 August 2012 the Supreme Court quashed the decision in part and remitted the case to the High Court. It considered that that court had erred when it included the declaration in the operative part.